Here is today's
conundrum. It will costs millions or billions of dollars to debate,
analyze, and implement the Food Quality Protection Act. It is not clear that
FQPA will save even one human life, but it is likely to increase the price of
fruits and vegetables. On the other hand, we know for certain that obesity, lack
of exercise, and poor diet (specifically, not enough fruits and vegetables)
cause people to die from cancer. Should we divert some of the money from FQPA
into programs that encourage exercise and proper nutrition?

The European Commission is pushing for an earlier phase-out of methyl bromide
even as some U.S. Congressmen are trying to extend our phase-out period. The
Europeans are concerned about ozone depletion that is occurring over Europe. The
U.S. is worried that our competitors will have an advantage over our growers if
we phase out methyl bromide before everyone else (the Montreal Protocol calls
for phase-out by 2005).

Europe, however, is now facing our dilemma. Their competitors in North Africa
are unlikely to phase out methyl bromide before 2015 because of an exemption for
developing nations. Will use in developing nations increase as U.S./European
decreases? Will the U.S. and Europe permanently lose production and/or
markets?

The European proposal contains an exemption for 'critical uses', and some
U.S. lawmakers want similar language for the U.S. This exemption would allow
continued use of methyl bromide until a technically and/or economically feasible
alternative is discovered. This situation would be a two-edged sword. Methyl
bromide represents a very lucrative market, but until methyl bromide is gone,
there may not be an adequate incentive to invest research dollars into finding a
replacement. Methyl bromide is an important tool for current production, but,
for enough money, somebody will find a way.

This tool is not available in the U.S. yet, but it is
cool. It is an unmanned helicopter from Yamaha for spraying pesticides. The
spray chopper can hold about 20 pounds of liquid or granular pesticide. You can
operate it from about 175 yards away, and it can spray from as low as 10 feet
off of the ground. However, I do not have information about two important
parameters: the cost and the performance. Also, if you only bought one, your
farm hands would be constantly fighting over who will do the spraying.

Find out more at their Web site (if you can type it all in correctly).

Here is another tool that may be a
close second on the fun index. Scientists at USDA have developed the
Aerodynamic Transport Body to deliver beneficial arthropods throughout a field
from the margins. Also known as the Bug Slinger, it is a modified skeet target
that holds the beneficial arthropods inside. After touch-down, the arthropods
escape, and the carrier deteriorates. Even tiny wasps have been delivered with
little injury. Only one thing keeps it out of first place on the fun index: you
can't shoot them.

You may also be interested
in the Mite Meter. It is a tractor-mounted device to gently deliver
predatory mites or other arthropods gently across the field. The Mite Meter can
be adjusted to drop from 500 to 20,000 mites/acre. (Life's not all fun and games
you know.)

Dr. Meister told me that one major challenge for IR-4 is to identify the top
priority needs for the growers. Growers, speak up! This program could save your
bacon (and tomatoes and strawberries). Don't blow it now and complain later.

Researchers, do you need money
for IR-4 biopesticide research? Contact Dr. Bill Biehn right away (732-932-9575)
or call me for a copy of the RFP. The IR-4 program is soliciting grant proposals
for 1999 funding. The proposals are due by October 30, 1998.

If you have ever heard me speak on pesticide safety, I have pointed out the
difficulty of obtaining definitive data on pesticide safety because, after all,
you cannot experiment with people. Or can you? According to the Environmental
Working Group, volunteers in three experiments drank dichlorvos mixed with corn
oil, and participants in another study drank aldicarb and orange juice. All of
the experiments were conducted in England or Scotland. See the report at http://www.ewg.org/

This situation creates a dilemma for EPA. U.S. laws would probably prohibit
this type of testing, but the data may be the best available for some EPA
determinations.

Should they use it? If the human data resulted in less restrictive pesticide
regulation, there would be a flood of similar experimentation. It is easy to
predict the subjects: the poor, the ignorant, the foolish. I am solidly against
this type of testing even if the data would be useful.

I did not mention the names of the pesticide companies because I am not
positive about the source. The Environmental Working Group does not invent
information, but many advocacy groups use facts selectively to their advantage.
On the other hand, this story was published in Science News (8-22-98), a very
reliable magazine.

Among all of the voices talking about FQPA, there are two that I consider
experts. Dr. Carl Winter is a food toxicologist in California. I have heard him
several times, and he always understands and presents both sides of pesticide
issues. The other person is Dr. Bruce Ames; he invented the Ames test for
carcinogenicity. There may be no one who knows more about the risks of
cancer-causing chemicals.

The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was passed in August 1996 promising to
ensure that the low levels of pesticides that may be in our foods are at safe
levels. Sounds like a good idea, doesn't it? Unfortunately, in the hands of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), implementation of the law could
prove disastrous for farmers and consumers across the U.S.

Instead of homegrown fresh fruits and vegetables expect them to be trucked in
from other countries. Cherries, peaches and other fruit will likely come from
South America. Our farmers will not be able to protect their crops economically
enough to compete in the world market.

The EPA is in danger of falling into the old trap of exaggerating potential
human risks from exposure to pesticides instead of using appropriate scientific
data to assess risks. The result: phantom risks that exist only on paper. Based
on this unrealistic information, the EPA has considered removing entire
classifications of pesticides from the market. Such a move could result in the
loss of valuable pest-control options for growers, a reduction in food
production, and an increase in food prices, all without any real improvement in
food safety.

With all of the focus on these compounded and unrealistic assumptions, it is
easy to overlook what is known about pesticide residues in foods. Results from
hundreds of thousands of food residue analyses conducted by state and federal
agencies consistently indicate that the levels of residues, when detected at
all, are extremely low. For example, suppose you take the typical human daily
exposure to a pesticide and feed laboratory animals 10,000 times that amount (on
the basis of body weight) every day throughout their lifetimes. What happens to
the animals? In general, nothing happens.

For any noticeable effects to be observed, animals generally need to be
exposed to levels at least 10,000 times our typical daily dose. Does this prove
the absolute safety of pesticide residues? Certainly not. But it does explain
why there is strong skepticism among many members of the health community,
myself included, over whether pesticide residue controls need to be
tightened.

These quotes from Bruce
Ames put things in their proper perspective. They were not made
about FQPA specifically, but they are appropriate. Professional activists are
effective publicists, but appear to have less of an incentive for scholarship or
critical analysis. The scientific enterprise, in contrast, is very competitive
for problem solving and weeds out uncritical people fairly effectively.

The quarter of the American population that eats the least fruits and
vegetables has over twice the rate of most types of cancer as the quarter eating
the most, as shown by about 200 epidemiological studies that are remarkably
consistent.

The assumption is wrong that residues of synthetic industrial chemicals
contribute significantly to cancer and that we can lower cancer rates by
eliminating them [3,4] . There are several reasons why dietary residues of
synthetic chemicals such as pesticides and industrial pollutants are not likely
to be significant carcinogenic risks to humans.

Animal cancer tests, which are done at the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of
the test chemical, are misinterpreted to mean that low doses of synthetic
chemicals and industrial pollutants are relevant to human cancer. Half of all
chemicals tested, whether synthetic or natural, are carcinogenic to rodents at
the MTD. A plausible explanation for the high proportion of positive results
is that testing at the MTD can cause chronic cell killing and consequent cell
division due to cell replacement, a risk factor for cancer that can be limited
to high doses. Ignoring this greatly exaggerates calculated hypothetical
cancer risks.

The vast bulk of chemicals ingested by humans are natural. For example
99.99% of the pesticides we eat are naturally present in plants toward off
insects and other predators. Half (33/59) of the natural pesticides tested at
the MTD are rodent carcinogens. Reducing our exposure to the 0.01% ingested
pesticides that are synthetic is not likely to reduce cancer rates. Synthetic
pesticide residues in the U.S. diet rank extremely low compared to the
background of natural chemicals when human exposures to rodent carcinogens are
ranked according to possible carcinogenic hazard.

Cooking food generates thousands of chemicals. There are over l000
chemicals reported in a cup of coffee. Only 26 have been tested in animal
cancer tests and more than half are rodent carcinogens; there are still a
thousand chemicals left to test. The amount of rodent carcinogens consumed as
pesticide residues in a year is less than the known amount of rodent
carcinogens in a cup of coffee. This does not mean that coffee is dangerous
but that animal cancer tests and worst-case risk assessment build in enormous
safety factors and should not be considered true risks.

One reason we can eat the tremendous variety of natural chemicals that are
rodent carcinogens is that animals and humans are extremely well protected by
many general-defense enzymes, most of which are inducible (i.e., whenever a
defense enzyme is in use, more of it is made). The enzymes are equally effective
against natural and synthetic reactive chemicals. One does not expect, nor does
one find, a general difference between synthetic and natural chemicals in
toxicity or ability to cause cancer in high-dose rodent tests.

There is no risk-free world and resources are limited; therefore, society
must distinguish between significant and insignificant risks in order to save
the most lives. Putting resources into minimizing minuscule exposures to
synthetic substances, such as pesticide residues, while ignoring the natural
world, can also harm human health by having adverse side effects which create
more risk. For example, adequate consumption of fruits and vegetables plays a
major role in lowering disease rates; therefore if banning pesticides because of
tiny hypothetical hazards of residues, increases costs (organic food is very
expensive), it harms public health.

EPA says its regulations cost $140 billion per year, which is equivalent to a
cost of about $2000 per American family. It has been argued effectively that the
overall result is to harm public health, because "wealthier is not only
healthier but highly risk reducing". One estimate indicates "that for every 1%
increase in income, mortality is reduced by 0.05%". In addition, as John Graham
has shown "the median toxin control program costs 58 times more per life-year
saved than the median injury prevention program and 146 times more than the
median medical program".

Graham and & Tengs have estimated that the U.S. could prevent 60,000
deaths a year by redirecting resources to more cost effective programs. We have
argued that the discrepancy is much greater since risk estimates used for toxin
control programs are hypothetical worst-case estimates and the risks are likely
to be wildly exaggerated and often may be zero. As the economists Zeckhouser and
Viscusi have pointed out "improvements in mortality and morbidity have come
primarily from technological progress and a higher standard of living, not from
government regulation". If the government wants to save the most lives for the
dollar it might consider increasing support of basic research. Basic research
drives technological progress, is highly cost effective in saving lives (unlike
most government programs it is fiercely competitive), and is less than 10% the
cost of EPA regulations.

If you want the entire publication and the supporting references, please
refer to: Is there a problem ? Env. Health Persp.1995. 103, 346-351

Also credit Dr. Ames for pointing out this quote from H.L. Mencken.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and
hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with a series of hobgoblins,
all of them imaginary."

The
Environmental Working Group and others filed a Freedom of Information Act
request to obtain hazard identification information on all 40 organophosphates
currently under consideration. Why is that a problem? Does EPA have
something to hide? The EPA does not have complete risk data for the
organophosphates. Their preliminary assessments are based on default assumptions
and worst-case estimates. These estimates are very scary, but they do not
reflect real-life risks. In the worst case, my children's' school will catch on
fire; the fire truck will be hit by a falling piece of space station Mir; and my
kids will be abducted by terrorists attracted by the fire. I took my children to
school because these events are extremely unlikely.

The EPA's current estimates should be very conservative because they do not
have all the information to make more refined, realistic estimates. The EPA risk
scenarios will be revised as additional data are received. Many people believe,
however, that the Environmental Working Group plans to usurp the process by
issuing reports based on the current data and assumptions. If such a report
could be used to frighten a large number of parents, the political options for
EPA would be very limited.

Additionally, the EPA assessments will have little review before the
information is released. There may be substantial errors that underestimate or
overestimate risks. The EPA cannot win if they try to correct the errors after
the reports are published. If risk estimates increase, groups will charge that
EPA underestimated risks because of undue influence from pesticide companies.
Likewise, if EPA reduces the risk estimates, it will appear that the Agency is
again appeasing the pesticide registrants.

The Environmental Working Group said they will use the EPA information 'as we
see fit.'

This example from the last
TRAC meeting will clearly demonstrate how the preliminary reports could
frighten people by not presenting the whole story. The committee worked
through the process with methidathion (Supracide). When EPA used all the worst
case scenarios (e.g., 100% acres treated, residues at the maximum legal
tolerance), the Margin of Exposure (MOE) was 78 (to be considered safe, the MOE
must exceed 100). With refined data (e.g., actual % crop treated and actual
field residues), the MOE was greater than 100.

A logical nondetect policy is also critical. Methidathion is often used as a
dormant application. Understandably, methidathion from dormant applications
cannot be detected on the harvested crop. Current EPA policy, however, assumes
that residues from a dormant application are present, just undetectable with
current technology. Therefore, EPA will assign a residue value for an
application of a nonsystemic pesticide that is applied before the crop even
blooms (who makes up these policies?).

Why not assume that every poisonous chemical is everywhere, and we just
cannot detect them?

The actual % crop treated is also critical. Much of concern for methidathion
stems from its citrus registrations, and children drink juice. Scary, right?
Methidathion is used almost exclusively on California oranges, but 98% of orange
juice is made oranges from Florida and other sources. The worst-case scenario
assumes that 100% of oranges are treated with methidathion and all of those
oranges wind up in juice.

Imagine this report based on the preliminary data alone. "EPA reports
indicate that all of oranges used to make the orange juice that YOUR children
drink may come from oranges treated with the nerve toxin methidathion!
Government refuses to act until more information can be analyzed. Pesticide
companies try to dilute risk numbers with additional 'real-world' data." These
statements scared my wife so badly that she poured our juice down the sink.
Although it is technically true, this story leads you to a frightening and
erroneous conclusion.

Preliminary
hazard assessment information for nine organophosphate chemicals was made
public by EPA August 10 were released in anticipation of a targeted Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request. The ACPA and registrant companies are
reviewing the assessment information, but they believe that environmental groups
to generate alarmist headlines may use the preliminary assessments.

If the ecological risk assessment is complete, it will be included as well.
Preliminary assessments for nine chemicals will be placed in the docket no later
than August 10th (terbufos, azinphos-methyl, phorate, ethion, naled, bensulide,
fenamiphos, isofenphos, profenofos), followed by seven additional chemicals on
September 9th (ethoprop, tribufos, sulfotepp, temephos, dimethoate, cadusafos,
fenthion). Each of the remaining 24 chemicals will be placed in the docket when
the preliminary risk assessment is complete.

On August 7, EPA placed in the EPA/Office
of Pesticide Programs docket the "FQPA Safety Factor Recommendations for the
Organophosphates - A Combined Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment
Review Committee and the FQPA Safety Factor Committee." If you want a
copy, call the EPA (703) 305-5805 or ACPA at (888) 587-0438. Ask for items 189,
190, 191, and 192.

Approximately 60 million
pounds of organophosphates are applied to 38 million crop acres in the U.S.
each year. About one-third of the total is applied to field corn, and
one-fourth is applied to cotton and one-fourth to fruits and vegetables.

Another 17 million pounds are used to control termites and mosquitoes. Five
products account for about 60% of the usage: chlorpyrifos (Dursban/Lorsban),
terbufos (Counter), tribuphos (Folex/Def), and malathion. (AP, 5-8-98 via
Chemically Speaking, 7-98)

I know better than to print this story,
but I have always been hard-headed according to my mother, wife, and
daughter. There is a great deal of concern about our exposure to
estrogen mimics; pesticides and plastics generally get most of the blame.
However, scientists in England reported that effluents from domestic sewage can
cause endocrine disruption in cell cultures and live fish. The researchers
discovered that the chemicals were primarily natural estrogens, with lesser
amounts of synthetic estrogens from birth control pills. A woman can excrete
approximately 16 micrograms of total estrogens per day. Not much from an
individual, but consider the millions of women in large cities. With so much
pressure to regulate estrogen mimics, will there also be restrictions placed on
these natural estrogens? (Environmental Sci & Technology, vol. 32:
1549-65 via Kansas Pesticide Newsletter, 7-98)

It seems that the Fox
Point, WI, school board is rethinking its earlier decision to ban use of
herbicides on local school grounds after one student serious exposure to poison
ivy. Ever since the ban, complaints about weed growth around school
buildings and playgrounds have increased, and the board admits that removing
weeds by hand is impractical and unreasonable. This situation should remind us
that both pests and pesticides carry risks; we need to consider both.

Spray drift has been one of our most
intractable pesticide pollution problems. One of the latest anti-drift
designs is the TeeJet Air Induction (AI) Nozzle that incorporates a venturi to
draw air into the spray liquid flowing through the nozzle resulting in larger,
air-filled droplets that are less prone to drift. [Note: We have no data
regarding the performance of this product.]

The air bubble-filled droplets are also less dense and thus tend to
disintegrate more readily on impact creating a splatter effect that
theoretically provides increased coverage inside a target canopy. The AI
nozzle's removable, polymer pre-orifice creates more droplets of more uniform
size, even at higher operating pressures. AI nozzles are designed to fit into
standard nozzle body and cap assemblies.

The United States exported
more than 1.2 billion pounds of pesticides in 1995-96. Exports of
pesticides classified as 'extremely hazardous' by the World Health Organization
have increased 500% since 1992. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem News, vol 26,
no. 32 via Kansas Pesticide Newsletter, 7-98)

The Natural Resources
Defense Council issued a report that highlights methods to reduce pesticide
use in agriculture. Farmers from 16 states developed a economically
viable system to reduce their dependence on pesticides. Pesticide use reductions
ranged from 10% to 100%. The growers used a variety of techniques to realize
these pesticide reductions. We have been preaching the same sermon; it is called
integrated pest management. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News,
7-23-98)

I am impressed with the NRDC approach because they are not simply whining for
pesticide restrictions. They call for increased funding for sustainable
agriculture, organic farming, and IPM. If we really want to reduce pesticide
risk, let us put our money where our mouth is and keep it full of food.

The University of Georgia has
received nearly $40,000 to develop and implement peach IPM through the EPA
Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP). The peach growers
and the U.Ga. College of Agriculture have recently joined PESP. It is a good
program and will not commit your organization to anything you will regret later.
If you want more information about joining PESP, give me a call.

If you want to knowwhat inert ingredients are used in pesticides,
go to the June 24, 1998 issue of the Federal Register (you can find it on the
Web easily). There are lists of currently used (and no longer used)
inerts. The EPA also identifies inert pesticide ingredients that may pose human
health risks. The notice does not identify ingredients in particular
pesticides.

Scientists with USDA have
identified possible biocontrol agents for Deer ticks (vector of Lyme disease).
Some types of nematodes and fungi kill deer ticks. Researchers are
investigating the timing, application rate, etc. necessary to achieve a level of
useful control.

Everyone is understandably nervous about Lyme disease because we have a lot
of ticks in Georgia. However, we have very few reported cases of Lyme disease.
You should still be concerned about ticks; they also transmit other diseases.
Protect yourself and your children when you go into tick-infested areas. Check
carefully for ticks when you return home. Ticks generally have to be attached
for some time to transmit diseases. Help your children check themselves; pay
attention to their hair. If you find an attached tick, do not panic. The person
should see a doctor if they develop a rash around the bite area or become ill.
Inform your doctor about the tick bite.

The EPA has authorized the use
of malathion to eradicate Medflies in Florida. Medflies were discovered
in three separate areas of Florida in the Spring. If this species of fruitfly
were to become established, it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars and
result in greatly increased application of pesticides.

When Medflies are discovered, the U.S. and Florida departments of agriculture
act quickly to eliminate the population. Malathion is commonly used in a bait
formulation. They start with ground applications, but aerial applications may
also be used. Recent concerns over human safety have prompted action groups to
use legal action to delay or stop malathion sprays. I understand their concerns,
but they fail to consider the environmental and health implications associated
with establishment of Medfly.

According to the World Wildlife Fund and the Wisconsin Potato and Vegetable
Growers Association, 200 potato growers have reduced pesticide risks 20% since
1996. In 1995, growers applied more than 190,000 pounds of insecticide to
264,000 potato acres; in 1997, they applied 74,000 pounds to 174,000 acres. The
ongoing five-year program aims to dramatically reduce the use of pesticides
considered acutely toxic, carcinogens, or endocrine disrupters. If you want more
information, visit the WWF on the WEB. (Pestic. & Tox. Chem. News,
7-9-98)

I keep hearing things about recordkeeping from a variety of sources. All this
buzz makes believe that pesticide recordkeeping may become very important in the
near future. If you use restricted-use pesticides or if you are a pesticide
contractor in Georgia, you must keep records of all applications. If you need
more information, call your local extension office.

We have covered many angles
of health and environmental concerns associated with biotechnology, but I have
never considered the implications for beekeepers. Proteins that are
engineered into plants may adversely affect bees. High doses of proteins from
genetically engineered rape shortened bee lives and interfered with odor
recognition.

Consumers may also have questions about honey produced from genetically
engineered plants. Can it be considered organic? Are the bees concentrating some
protein that may be unsafe for my children? Can or should honey be labeled as
'genetically modified' if the nectar comes from engineered plants?

Round-up Ready soybeans and glyphosate
are at the heart of a dispute between Monsanto and Zeneca. As you know,
Monsanto created Round-up Ready, and they sell a glyphosate product, Round-up.
They would prefer that growers that plant Round-up Ready crops use their
glyphosate product; Round-up Ready soybeans are expected to capture up to 70% of
the market soon. Zeneca claims that Monsanto unfairly requires Round-up Ready
growers to use Round-up when they could be using other glyphosate products (like
Zeneca's).

Although FQPA is in the headlines, WPS is
still around. If you have an agricultural operation (forestry, row
crops, green house, or nursery), you need to make sure your workers are properly
trained and protected. The Georgia Department of Agriculture is checking for WPS
compliance, and you are increasing your liability if you do not follow WPS. The
GDA and the Extension Service will glad to help you; call your local extension
office.

For the first time, an exemption to
WPS has been recognized because of an agricultural emergency. Under
WPS, an agricultural emergency could provide some exceptions to WPS if a grower
would face substantial economic loss due to circumstances beyond his control. An
'agricultural emergency' is narrowly defined. Grape growers in California were
allowed to send pickers back into fields treated with sulfur before the re-entry
interval had expired because of losses associated with fungal disease. (EPA Memo
from J. Horton, 7-2-98)

All of these pesticides are being stubbed out because of nonpayment of fees.
In other words, the current registrant is letting them go. You may still use
them according to the label.

I have not seen this many pesticides canceled at one time. It is getting more
expensive to maintain registrations; the companies face greater liability, and
regulations are getting stricter all the time.

The appearance of any trade name in this newsletter is not
intended to endorse that product nor convey negative implications of unmentioned
products.

Dear Readers:

The Georgia Pest Management Newsletter is a monthly journal for extension
agents, extension specialists, and others interested in pest management news. It
provides information on legislation, regulations, and other issues affecting
pest management in Georgia.

Do not regard the information in this newsletter as pest management
recommendations. Consult the Georgia Pest Control Handbook, other
extension publications, or appropriate specialists for this information.

Your input in this newsletter is encouraged.

If you wish to be added to the mailing list, just call us at 706-542-1765